9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowance of the same, is directed to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.4251/Del./2019 - - - Dated:- 23-9-2022 - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member And Shri Yogesh Kumar Us, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri R.K. Kapoor, Ca For the Revenue : Shri Sumit Kumar Verma, Sr. DR ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals)-34, New Delhi dated 15.02.2019 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee reads as under :- The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on the facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.1,75,43,557/- on account of disallowance u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the issue has been decided by the ITAT in assessee s own case in favour of the assessee for AY 2010-11. Ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that the facts are similar, so following the said decision, he held that assessee should be granted the deduction. We may gainfully refer to the concluding portion of the ld. CIT (A) s order as under :- 6.3 During the course of appellate proceedings, appellant has submitted that product being manufactured by the appellant falls under tariff 7607 and 8309 of the Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA). The appellant was not engaged in the manufacturing of any article or thing notified in Schedule 13, the deduction was allowed to the appellant u/s 80IC in the AY 2007-08 to 2010-11, 2012-13 2013-14 by CsI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he claim of the appellant u/s 80IC was rejected by the AO in AY 2010-11 to 2013-14 2015-16 which were allowed by the CsIT(A). Hon'ble ITAT vide ITA No. 5994 and 6550 for AY 2010-11 dated 18.02.2019 in the case of the appellant dismissed the revenue's appeal on the issue of 80re. The facts are identical during the year under consideration and AO has rejected the claim of the appellant u/s 80rC following the orders of the earlier year and to keep issue alive. Therefore, keeping in view the principle of judicial consistency, the addition made by the AO at Rs.1,75,43,557/- is deleted and AO is directed to allow the deduction u/s 80IC. 5. Against this order, Revenue is in appeal before us. We have heard both the parties and perused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an income of Rs.2,84,91,000/-and claimed deduction under section 80 IC of the Act to the tune of Rs.1,19,73,540/-. Learned Assessing Officer, however, held that the products manufactured by the assessee fall under schedule 13 (at serial No. 19) which is a negative list and, therefore, profit derived from the manufacture of these products is not eligible for deduction under section 80 IC of the Act. 3. Assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A), as a matter of fact, found that the products manufactured by the assessee do not fall under tariff No. 4811.20, 4811.31 and rather the products fall under the tariff 7607-20-90 of CETA and while referring to the circular No. 28/89 dated 26/9/1989 and 141/2/2003 dated 6/10/2003 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed the same. 6. Facts being identical, we find that the issues involved in this matter are directly and substantially covered in assessee's own case in earlier years and while respectfully following the same we hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80 IC of the Act and the addition to the tune of Rs.1,19,73,540/-by disallowance of the same, is directed to be deleted. Grounds of appeal are answered accordingly. 8. Before us, no material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the facts in the year under consideration are different from that of earlier years or the order of ITAT for earlier years have been set aside/stayed by higher judicial forum. In such a situation, we find no reason to interfere w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
